[governance] Inputs for synthesis paper

Tue Sep 9 23:56:57 EDT 2008

> > Ok, then lets do that. We will not use the terms negative, positive
> and
> > collective rights, since we are not able to agree on analytical
> > difference/
> 
> it is not a satisfactory solution.
> 
> The whole point of this debate is that some people mean completely
> different, sometimes clashing things by "rights."

The solution then is to say what you say above. People have different
interpretations of what are rights. I am fine with saying this in the
statement. 

The solution to the problem cannot to use the term individual and collective
rights - because many people have said here that their real problem is that
are not sure what is meant by these terms. We cant say there are
contestations between people who only admit individual rights and those who
also support positive and collective rights - without some level of basic
agreement about what is meant by these terms. I think that is simple and
obvious.

I had earlier asked the group if those opposing collective rights can say
that in saying so they oppose these and these specific rights which I, and
many other, consider collective rights. I have not been getting any clear
reply to that.  So the main problem seems to me to be that we cant agree on
what is meant by collective rights. That makes a statement about there being
differences between backers of 'only individual rights' and 'also positive
and collective rights' meaningless. Does it not? 

And the individual/negative rights folks say, "those
> conceptions of collective rights can often be threats to what we
> consider rights."

As I said, begs the question, which 'conceptions of collective rights..' .
Indigenous people's rights, cultural rights, women's rights, minority
rights, linguistic rights.... ???

Parminder 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 8:07 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder; Tapani Tarvainen
> Subject: RE: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
> > Ok, then lets do that. We will not use the terms negative, positive
> and
> > collective rights, since we are not able to agree on analytical
> > difference/
> 
> it is not a satisfactory solution.
> 
> The whole point of this debate is that some people mean completely
> different, sometimes clashing things by "rights." This division applies
> not only within civil society, but to states and business, for example
> IPRs. In essence, the positive and collective rights folks are saying,
> "those individual rights you care about so much are not meaningful, we
> need a different conception that pushes states into a more active
> guarantor role." And the individual/negative rights folks say, "those
> conceptions of collective rights can often be threats to what we
> consider rights."
> 
> I do not see how we advance a rights discourse around the internet by
> pretending that that problem does not exist. I would rather squarely
> face it, acknowledge its existence, and deal with it. I see absolutely
> no value in initiating a rights discourse without dealing with that
> problem. And if you somehow succeed in making it the theme of IGF IV,
> you will immediately be forced to deal with it. So let the synthesis
> paper input openly acknowledge the problem, please.
> 
> --MM
> 
> > meaning etc. In fact in doing so we may be affirming the
> indivisibility of
> > human rights as agreed in many global human rights documents,
> including of
> > the UN. WSIS declaration of principles affirms 'the universality,
> > indivisibility, interdependence and interrelation of all human rights
> and
> > fundamental freedoms...'
> >
> > Accordingly, I propose the contested para to be,
> >
> >
> > "The openness and diversity of the internet are underpinned by widely
> > recognized (but still imperfectly enforced) basic human rights: the
> > individual right to freedom of expression and to privacy. It may also
> be
> > useful to explore if and how other kinds of rights may be meaningful
> in
> > relation to the Internet; for instance, a 'right to the Internet',
> which
> > may
> > relate to the IGF's 'access' theme, and a right of cultural expression
> -
> > including the right to have an Internet in ones own language, which
> can
> > inform the important IGF thematic area of 'cultural diversity'."
> >
> > I have deliberately kept the connection to IGF's thematic areas
> because if
> > we do make this proposed input we will need to take it forward towards
> > achieving our real objective of getting a rights-based agenda to
> underpin
> > IGF's deliberations.
> >
> > In fact not just going with FoE and privacy rights is also important
> in
> > this
> > context. Such a text can never get accepted as the basis of full range
> of
> > IGF's work and discussions.
> >
> > Parminder
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Tapani Tarvainen [mailto:tapani.tarvainen at effi.org]
> > > Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 10:41 PM
> > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > > Subject: Re: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper
> > >
> > > On Mon, Sep 08, 2008 at 10:02:20PM +0530, Parminder
> > > (parminder at itforchange.net) wrote:
> > >
> > > > 'Collective rights' is obviously an analytical category and not a
> > right
> > > as
> > > > such. So when I speak of collective rights I am clearly meaning
> > specific
> > > > rights like rights of indigenous people, linguistic rights,
> cultural
> > > rights,
> > > > minority rights, right to development etc.
> > >
> > > > To say that one doesn't believe in collective rights one must be
> able
> > to
> > > say
> > > > that one doesn't believe in the above rights.
> > >
> > > It does not follow if one does not agree that those rights are
> > collective.
> > >
> > > I suspect one or maybe the key problem here is that the term indeed
> > > carries different meanings, and people want to reject some of them.
> > >
> > > In particular, probably few (?) people would oppose collective
> > > rights as justification of individual rights - rights individuals
> > > would have because of their membership in a group.
> > > The opposition stems from the other meaning, where collective
> > > rights would justify depriving individuals of their rights.
> > >
> > > > In fact I am fine if one is ready to accept a long list of all
> these
> > > rights,
> > > > and not mention the terms negative, positive and collective
> rights.
> > That
> > > > merely would mean one thinks all these rights, along with those
> that
> > may
> > > be
> > > > considered negative and positive rights are in the same category,
> and
> > > need
> > > > not be differentiated. I could in fact be happier with such a
> > position.
> > >
> > > That might be a useful approach.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Tapani Tarvainen
> > > ____________________________________________________________
> > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> > >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> > >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> > >
> > > For all list information and functions, see:
> > >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >
> > For all list information and functions, see:
> >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance